http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-starts-today/Free contraception for women provision of Obama health care law starts today (CBS News) (August 1, 2012)"Beginning today, up to 47 million women may be eligible to get free access to preventive health care services as that provision of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act goes into effect."

fail.

Food stamp usage is up because we're in a recession. Regardless, it's still a trivial amount of the federal budget and conservatives whinge about it as though those "takers" (they all clearly deserve to starve) are the ones driving the debt up. They're not. If we're being brutally honest the debt is being racked up by old people (medicare/social security) and the military paired with the lowest tax rates since before World War II.

"The number of Americans using food stamps rose to 46.7 million in June, reigniting the debate over the amount of food-stamp spending the government should provide. The total cost for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the fiscal year ending September 2011 was $75.7 billion, more than double the amount four years before."

<-conservative: I don't mind helping people out. but the fraud needs to be taken care of, and these people need helped 'up'. not in welfare their whole lives. so also fail on your bigoted opinion on conservatives.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-starts-today/Free contraception for women provision of Obama health care law starts today (CBS News) (August 1, 2012)"Beginning today, up to 47 million women may be eligible to get free access to preventive health care services as that provision of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act goes into effect."

fail.

Not quite. Rush Limbaugh's assertion (the one that is constantly parroted) is that the government is the one footing the bill. That's why Rush feels Ms. Fluke owes the government sex tapes. Mandating that health insurance provide birth control is not the same thing as the government -paying- for it.

<-conservative: I don't mind helping people out. but the fraud needs to be taken care of, and these people need helped 'up'. not in welfare their whole lives. so also fail on your bigoted opinion on conservatives.

The link you provided does not demonstrate your assertion is accurate. 461 cases of fraud is not evidence of an epidemic on a national (or state) level.

Further, curbing the fraud (and to be clear, I agree, people who abuse the system should be punished) requires more government employees, another thing conservatives hate.

I'm going to be honest here. If your source is "obamaphone.net", I'm not even going to click the link. The fact that your source is "obamaphone.net" is enough evidence for me that you have no case. Find an objective source.

Seriously, it would be like if you asked me to back up an assertion that gun control works and I linked to RepublicansAreIdiots.com as a source.

Not quite. Rush Limbaugh's assertion (the one that is constantly parroted) is that the government is the one footing the bill. That's why Rush feels Ms. Fluke owes the government sex tapes. Mandating that health insurance provide birth control is not the same thing as the government -paying- for it.

The link you provided does not demonstrate your assertion is accurate. 461 cases of fraud is not evidence of an epidemic on a national (or state) level.

Further, curbing the fraud (and to be clear, I agree, people who abuse the system should be punished) requires more government employees, another thing conservatives hate.

I'm going to be honest here. If your source is "obamaphone.net", I'm not even going to click the link. The fact that your source is "obamaphone.net" is enough evidence for me that you have no case. Find an objective source.

Seriously, it would be like if you asked me to back up an assertion that gun control works and I linked to RepublicansAreIdiots.com as a source.

First link is always source. The "obamaphone.net" was simply to show someone is even marketing as such.
Edit: Also, I believe the phone program was initially for people to have that basic way of communication. Hasn't it evolved into smart phones? (That's a fairly significant cost change from a land line to a smart phone.) Anyway, my issue with this is that 'gray conflict of interest' area.

Alright, now try linking something that shows your point is sound. There will always be outlying cases of fraud in any system. Where is your evidence that America is suffering from a huge problem of food stamp fraud? Your first link claimed 461 cases of fraud in a state where nearly two million people are on the program, and your second asserts 1000ish cases of stores participating in fraud nationwide. We live in a country of over 300 million people, a thousand cases is trivially small.

First link is always source. The "obamaphone.net" was simply to show someone is even marketing as such.

Did you read your first link? Scroll to the bottom. It says in big bold letters "The Obamaphone rumor is false." That was the point I was trying to make in the first place, what are you contesting?

I'm not really sure how I feel about the program one way or another, but whether it's a good idea or not it's not Obama's program.

Edit: Not to mention I would have a problem with this no matter the president. Their's a conflict of interest here.
fail.

Your link is full of shoddy incomplete research, and fails to contradict that the cell phone program was initiated under Bush. The ONLY thing you're trying to contradict is the claim it started under Reagan, and trying to pin it to Clinton.

And the thing is, you and your source are just flat-out wrong. Let's check out the actual, official government Lifeline web page, shall we?

Alright, now try linking something that shows your point is sound. There will always be outlying cases of fraud in any system. Where is your evidence that America is suffering from a huge problem of food stamp fraud? Your first link claimed 461 cases of fraud in a state where nearly two million people are on the program, and your second asserts 1000ish cases of stores participating in fraud nationwide. We live in a country of over 300 million people, a thousand cases is trivially small.

My assertion was to show that fraud exists, and that the food stamp program should be policed in a way to minimize this. Your assertion was that all conservatives want people to starve. (which isn't the case, obviously. We're just concerned with waste.) Also, with your point above, 300 million people, but with 47 million on food stamps. :-p Which actually (15-16%) is fairly significant number, and we (as a nation) should be careful that we really are giving this out to people who need it.

Did you read your first link? Scroll to the bottom. It says in big bold letters "The Obamaphone rumor is false." That was the point I was trying to make in the first place, what are you contesting?

I'm not really sure how I feel about the program one way or another, but whether it's a good idea or not it's not Obama's program.

So I cited an article that wants support your opinion. That should be a good thing right? However your facts were incorrect none the less. (When it started, etc.) I'm also not entirely sure how much of these things are a 'presidential' thing, and how much of it is a Congress and Senate thing. (for example, the last half of Bushes final term he was a complete lame duck in terms of power. He also pretty much rolled over and let the dem's get what they wanted.)

Your link is full of shoddy incomplete research, and fails to contradict that the cell phone program was initiated under Bush. The ONLY thing you're trying to contradict is the claim it started under Reagan, and trying to pin it to Clinton.

And the thing is, you and your source are just flat-out wrong. Let's check out the actual, official government Lifeline web page, shall we?

Since 1985, the Lifeline program has provided a discount on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers . . .

1985. Reagan was President until January '89. It's a Reagan program, originally.

"The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996."

it seems theirs conflicting data. wikipedia and another source (dem source) site it as starting in the late 90's. If you want you can go all the way back to 1934.

Here's the bit about Reagan "Era of deregulation: There was a push for deregulating the telecommunications industry in the 1980s. Under President Ronald Reagan, the FCC shifted its focus from “social equity to an economic efficiency objective,” which it claimed was a primary purpose of the Communications Act of 1934.[4] After AT&T was split up in 1984, universal service was still “supported by a system of above-cost access charges paid to local exchange companies.” Increased competition and universal service were later legislatively addressed and codified with the Telecommunications Act of 1996."

PS: Also, please refrain from calling stuff shoddy. I'm not trying to 'pin' anything, but back up or refute facts listed. (And it's only 'pinning' because your trying to use these facts in a negative light. Do you really care if something like this started with Clinton? I don't care if it started with Bush. I think the cell/smart phone plan is terrible no matter who started. )

One of these days, people will stop labeling a cell phone as a "luxury" and understand that if you want to be employed, not having one is a burden on the employment search, as well as access to the internet. No one needs suepr high speed internet and a free iPhone 5, but to suggest those services are any less important than say, electricity, is extremely naive.

My assertion was to show that fraud exists, and that the food stamp program should be policed in a way to minimize this. Your assertion was that all conservatives want people to starve. (which isn't the case, obviously. We're just concerned with waste.) Also, with your point above, 300 million people, but with 47 million on food stamps. :-p Which actually (15-16%) is fairly significant number, and we (as a nation) should be careful that we really are giving this out to people who need it.

So I cited an article that wants support your opinion. That should be a good thing right? However your facts were incorrect none the less. (When it started, etc.) I'm also not entirely sure how much of these things are a 'presidential' thing, and how much of it is a Congress and Senate thing. (for example, the last half of Bushes final term he was a complete lame duck in terms of power. He also pretty much rolled over and let the dem's get what they wanted.)

"The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996."

it seems theirs conflicting data. wikipedia and another source (dem source) site it as starting in the late 90's. If you want you can go all the way back to 1934.

Here's the bit about Reagan "Era of deregulation: There was a push for deregulating the telecommunications industry in the 1980s. Under President Ronald Reagan, the FCC shifted its focus from “social equity to an economic efficiency objective,” which it claimed was a primary purpose of the Communications Act of 1934.[4] After AT&T was split up in 1984, universal service was still “supported by a system of above-cost access charges paid to local exchange companies.” Increased competition and universal service were later legislatively addressed and codified with the Telecommunications Act of 1996."

Who pays for these cell phones according both link?

---------- Post added 2013-02-14 at 06:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Tinykong

One of these days, people will stop labeling a cell phone as a "luxury" and understand that if you want to be employed, not having one is a burden on the employment search, as well as access to the internet. No one needs suepr high speed internet and a free iPhone 5, but to suggest those services are any less important than say, electricity, is extremely naive.

Which is why it is the duty of telecommunication services to provide these cell phones. It is not paid for by tax payers, but the very utility that provides the service.

Which is why it is the duty of telecommunication services to provide these cell phones. It is not paid for by tax payers, but the very utility that provides the service.

I don't know the particulars of the cell phone program, but I don't have a problem with it being part of the unemployment/low income package. Findind a job without a cell phone is pretty tough, considering that some employers just dial the numbers of people they want to hire, and the first person to pick up the phone gets the job.

I'm sure that it gets abused, but that shouldn't kill the program for people who use it responsibly. Maybe tie it to only the unemployed, and after finding a job, offer them a low cost plan with the same phone/number to offset the costs.

and that the food stamp program should be policed in a way to minimize this.

It is. That's how we know those cases were fraud. The fact that they were outed means they didn't get away with it.

Your assertion was that all conservatives want people to starve. (which isn't the case, obviously. We're just concerned with waste.)

You don't speak for all conservatives. Some will proudly admit that yes, they would rather the government just let people starve. Some will claim they want the safety net to be there, but call for massive cuts to the program or pants-on-head retarded reforms such as the ones suggested in the popular conservative meme "Put me in charge of foodstamps" that has been circulating around Facebook.

Also, with your point above, 300 million people, but with 47 million on food stamps. :-p Which actually (15-16%) is fairly significant number, and we (as a nation) should be careful that we really are giving this out to people who need it.

I agree. Tackling unemployment and the soaring wealth inequality should be a very high priority right now. The debt is an important long term problem to deal with, but it's not the sword of Damocles that a lot of people on both sides think it is.

So I cited an article that wants support your opinion.

It wasn't an accurate source, and my assertion that the program started under Reagan was correct.

That should be a good thing right? However your facts were incorrect none the less. (When it started, etc.)

I'm also not entirely sure how much of these things are a 'presidential' thing, and how much of it is a Congress and Senate thing. (for example, the last half of Bushes final term he was a complete lame duck in terms of power. He also pretty much rolled over and let the dem's get what they wanted.)

The president generally takes the blame regardless. Obama has had a house that will filibuster anything he wants, but he still gets the blame for what happened during his first term (well, from conservatives at least).

Just to briefly sum up the gist of this conversation: I pointed out that someone calling others ignorant made three points that were either extremely weak or objectively false. You attempt to rebut me, and now you're conceding that I'm right?

1. The cell phones are not Obama's responsibility.
2. Food stamp fraud is not a serious problem at present.
3. The government is not footing the bill for contraceptives.

The reason why there is confusion with dates, is because the Reagan life line was based on LAN line service. The line in life line is the lan line. The cell phone service provided is simply an update to our technology.

I don't know the particulars of the cell phone program, but I don't have a problem with it being part of the unemployment/low income package. Findind a job without a cell phone is pretty tough, considering that some employers just dial the numbers of people they want to hire, and the first person to pick up the phone gets the job.

I'm sure that it gets abused, but that shouldn't kill the program for people who use it responsibly. Maybe tie it to only the unemployed, and after finding a job, offer them a low cost plan with the same phone/number to offset the costs.

You don't get data and there is minute limit. But, I think a cell phone is invaluable to anyone looking for a job. It's paid by telecommunication companies, it's not tax paid money or anything that gets placed on the debt.

It's paid by telecommunication companies, it's not tax paid money or anything that gets placed on the debt.

It always filters down to the source of income. 'We' are that source. (where 'we' are those individuals or persons providing the revenue for utyx xyz. Obviously it's a non issue if you some how live without a phone. :-p)

This is my issue with taxes on corps, and calling it a tax on the rich. If you 'really' wanted to tax the rich, I'd go after those capital gains incomes, and then do a tiered tax similar to income tax so that it targets those of extremely high earning from investing extremely large amounts of money.

I'd also lower the income tax significantly. Would you rather tax the guy who is working 60 hours a week and earning 300k a year, or the guy who put a few million into a safe investment where he's getting a 300k return?

(PS: And this is also the Conservative side in me. That dude investing is doing an important job for our economy as well. It's just in the above scenario you have 1 guy who is working for it, and 1 guy who has already made it. (it being rich.))

You don't get data and there is minute limit. But, I think a cell phone is invaluable to anyone looking for a job. It's paid by telecommunication companies, it's not tax paid money or anything that gets placed on the debt.

If it's being paid for by telecoms through some sort of government mandate, then why do people care? As if a few extra dollars a month on a cell phone plan to help keep people out of the unemployment office is a burden.

"The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996."

it seems theirs conflicting data. wikipedia and another source (dem source) site it as starting in the late 90's.

There is no "conflicting data". Lifeline started in '85 under Reagan. It was then adopted into future legislation by other Presidents, and expanded upon. You're confusing those future legislations, like the USF, with the origin of Lifeline, which they were not.

PS: Also, please refrain from calling stuff shoddy. I'm not trying to 'pin' anything, but back up or refute facts listed.

You're linking to sites that aren't doing very good research. Since if you check the Lifeline web page, which I linked myself, and check the history of the program, it's pretty darned clear; it started in 1985.

Repeating bad information by bad or biased researchers is precisely what I mean by "shoddy". The first thing you should be doing when you're looking this sort of stuff up is checking the actual program's site. Always check primary sources where possible.

My issue was with the fact that they're smart phones. Why not just have them use a basic cell? The services required is a much cheaper alternative.

How much data do they get per month on these smart phones? If there is a cheaper alternative, why have the telecommunications companies have not provided one? It's in their best interest to save money, as they are the ones paying for it, why are they not providing cheaper phones?

Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban

"We" do. Where "we" is the consumers or normal users of these telephone services, as well as any other sources/persons that provide income to the utyx.

Yet, you still use these services. It's part of what they pay to operate on infustructure the tax payer paid for.

If it's being paid for by telecoms through some sort of government mandate, then why do people care? As if a few extra dollars a month on a cell phone plan to help keep people out of the unemployment office is a burden.

It always filters down to the source of income. 'We' are that source. (where 'we' are those individuals or persons providing the revenue for utyx xyz. Obviously it's a non issue if you some how live without a phone. :-p)

Some how live without a phone? You make it out to sound like something you can't live without... Like a necessity or something...

Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban

This is my issue with taxes on corps, and calling it a tax on the rich. If you 'really' wanted to tax the rich, I'd go after those capital gains incomes, and then do a tiered tax similar to income tax so that it targets those of extremely high earning from investing extremely large amounts of money.

Than stop calling it that. This is neither a tax, nor something that hinges on wealth.

Originally Posted by GreatSageCorban

I'd also lower the income tax significantly. Would you rather tax the guy who is working 60 hours a week and earning 300k a year, or the guy who put a few million into a safe investment where he's getting a 300k return?

I would rather tax the 1% of the population that controls 60% of the wealth, more than 99% of the people who hold the remaining 40%. Would you rather milk a cow to get 60% of the milk you need, or 99 cows to get 40%? I know, this is my war against cows that produce more milk.

---------- Post added 2013-02-14 at 07:01 PM ----------

Cows even get hormones, so the less producing cows could be the higher producing cows. I guess we call that social services. If your income depends on high yielding cows, you will use part of your income to make more of your cows high yielding. The goal of these social services, is to have as many high producing cows as possible. If more of your income depends on high yielding cows, you will do what ever it takes, including injections of social services, to make as many of your cows high yielding as you can.

Some how live without a phone? You make it out to sound like something you can't live without... Like a necessity or something...

I wasn't referencing this at all. I was stating that only those who do not provide income to the utyx are those who do not pay for this. that is all.

Than stop calling it that. This is neither a tax, nor something that hinges on wealth.

In a way it is a tax. It just comes at you from an indirect method.

I would rather tax the 1% of the population that controls 60% of the wealth, more than 99% of the people who hold the remaining 40%. Would you rather milk a cow to get 60% of the milk you need, or 99 cows to get 40%? I know, this is my war against cows that produce more milk.

Cows even get hormones, so the less producing cows could be the higher producing cows. I guess we call that social services. If your income depends on high yielding cows, you will use part of your income to make more of your cows high yielding. The goal of these social services, is to have as many high producing cows as possible. If more of your income depends on high yielding cows, you will do what ever it takes, including injections of social services, to make as many of your cows high yielding as you can.

Then you are for what I stated. Those who are the 1% make their income from capital gains, and not from wages. What everyone should be calling for is lower income tax across the board, (IE: the method in which some might acquire the wealth to become rich.) and then create a tiered tax for capital gains in such a fashion that it does not hurt those in retirement, but does take from those who are investing extremely large sums of money.